Disability rights lawsuit heads in new direction

A federal judge recently hindered efforts to allow more people with
developmental disabilities to live in the community rather than in
institutions.

U.S. District Judge James Holderman ordered Ligas v. Maram, a civil lawsuit filed against the state in 2005 by nine people with
developmental disabilities who say institutions are their only housing option,
to proceed as an individual lawsuit rather than as a class action.

Advocates from Equip for Equality, a statewide protection and advocacy
organization for people with disabilities, preferred a class action lawsuit
that would have represented the majority of people with developmental
disabilities in Illinois.

However, Barry Taylor, the legal advocacy director for Equip for Equality and
lead counsel for plaintiffs in the case, says the outcome of Ligas v. Maram could still change the state’s policies. According to the organization’s statistics, Illinois ranks 51st in the United States and the District of
Columbia in serving the disabled in integrated settings. Illinois currently
houses 6,000 people with developmental disabilities in 250 private,
state-funded, 16-plus bed institutions across the state and rarely offers
community placement.

“The judge has not made a ruling on the underlying issue,” Taylor says. “We believe the state is failing to provide community services to people who want
community services.”

Holderman also denied a proposed consent decree previously agreed to by both
Illinois officials and plaintiffs in the case. The settlement would have
required all people living in institutions to receive evaluations and the
choice to move to their own apartments or five-or-six-person group homes [see “Lawsuit opens up more housing options,” Dec. 18].

Even though Holderman initially certified the lawsuit as class action in 2006,
he reversed his ruling based on objections heard at a July 1 fairness hearing.
People with developmental disabilities or their family members submitted more
than 2,500 written objections to the proposed consent decree; more than 30
publicly protested the terms of the settlement.

Many of those in opposition, Holderman explained in his July 7 ruling, were
neither eligible for, nor desired, the move from an institution to a community
setting. The judge also ruled that the proposed consent decree overreached its
objective — especially the provision that would establish annual evaluations for all
developmentally disabled individuals who live in institutions. The Americans
with Disabilities Act does not currently require such evaluations.

Taylor disagrees with the recent ruling, saying that the proposed consent decree
specifically stated that individuals who wished to remain in institutions would
not be forced to move.

Plaintiffs in the case filed the lawsuit against the Illinois Department of
Human Services and the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services,
alleging that “unnecessary institutionalization” violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. They’ll review their options and meet with state officials to decide how to move
forward.

“We’re committed to making changes for people with developmental disabilities,” Taylor says, “and we’re hoping the state is still committed despite the judge’s ruling.”

DHSâ€ˆspokesperson Tom Green said he was unable to comment on the pending
litigation.

A status hearing for the individual plaintiffs’ claims will be held on July 30.